Palm Sunday - Why Was Christ Entering Jerusalem?

[Fidei Defensor]

There have been many claimants to Messiahship but only One still has a following until this very day. In other cases the execution of the claimant was sufficient to terminate the following but in the case of Jesus of Nazareth something peculiar happened. Though he was executed in a manner that specifically served to humiliate him and was considered accursed by his people, Christianity spread at an incredible rate. The question is what caused this expansion, to which Christians have always provided the same answer, namely the resurrection.

In the limited context of the Judeo-Christian religions, yes. But what about all the other religions with ancient foundations? Or how about the fact that Judaism still exists. So much for the all powerful Messiah!

[mortify]

In the limited context of the Judeo-Christian religions, yes. But what about all the other religions with ancient foundations? Or how about the fact that Judaism still exists. So much for the all powerful Messiah!

 

You're running away from the point. There were many claimants to being the Messiah but all their movements persished with the exception of one. According to many secular historians Jesus of Nazareth was simply an apocalyptic preacher, why would anyone bother to invent stories about him? It's easy to say this prophecy was manipulated and that miracle was invented, but seriously ask yourself how historically speaking this could all unfold. It's like we're standing near a beach watching a tidal wave sweep through, is it logical to suggest a young boy throwing a rock into the ocean caused this? Of course not, and for the same reason the "historical Jesus" that many secular historians paint just isn't fathomable. By making Christ more ordinary they run into the difficulty of explaining how he became Divine in the first place.

Edited March 26, 2013 by mortify

[Fidei Defensor]

You're running away from the point. There were many claimants to being the Messiah but all their movements persished with the exception of one. According to many secular historians Jesus of Nazareth simply an apocalyptic preacher, why would anyone bother to invent stories about him? It's easy to asy this prophecy was manipulated and that miracle was invented, but seriously ask yourself how historically speaking this could all unfold. It's like we're standing near a beach watching a tidal wave sweep through, is it logical to suggest a young throwing a rock into the ocean caused this? Of course not, and for the same reason the "historical Jesus" that many secular historians paint just isn't fathomable. By making Christ more ordinary they run into the difficulty of explaining how he became Divine in the first place.

A lot of things can happen when you have a small group, no written records until at least 40-50 years after the events, and a strong belief that you have the one true religion.  Christianity won the dog fight and survived. But if it hadn't been for the eventual adaptation of the religion by Rome, we may all turned out to be polytheists instead!

 

I am always skeptical of things written about solely by the propagators of an idea. And I am also skeptical of beliefs that are based on such unprovable assertions. 

Edited March 26, 2013 by tardis ad astra

[mortify]

A lot of things can happen when you have a small group, no written records until at least 40-50 years after the events, and a strong belief that you have the one true religion.  Christianity won the dog fight and survived. But if it hadn't been for the eventual adaptation of the religion by Rome, we may all turned out to be polytheists instead!

 

Let's focus on your first sentence. What do you define as a "small group" and how do you know it was small? Secondly, why would this be a negative? It's easier to control the flow of information in a small group than a larger one. What you have to realize is that we're not dealing with a game of telephone or rumors floating around that were eventually written on paper, we're dealing with a controlled flow of information with a strict apparatus for its transmission. There is clearly an authority even in the earliest stage of Christianity, we note for example that when a controversy arose over circumsizing gentiles Paul's response is not to solve it himself, but to hed to Jerusalem and bring it to judgement among the Twelve. This key group known as "The Twelve" is repeatedly mentioned and serves as a reference for an actual authority that existed even in those times. After his conversion, Paul spent some time in seclusion but after resurfacing his first priority was to meet with the "pillars" of Christiantiy, namely Peter, John, and James, they formed the highest authorities in his time. What we see here is clearly an authority that serves as a control, even when Paul is vested with an authority to preach himself among the Gentiles, he is constantly in contact with communities he started ensuring they remain on the straight course. Clearly, we're not dealing with a loosely held organization that is headless, where all sorts of fancies and strange ideas float around. When what is judged as "error" arises it is quickly squashed. Furthermore, the transmission of this information was not only gaurded by an authority but by the method of transmission itself. In 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul uses a technical phrase that is lost on modern readers, he says what "was handed to him he passes on". This phrase refers to a specific type of training that was known in the Helenistic and Judaic world where one memorized information verbatim, it involved active learning, reptition, and correction by a teacher. This is actually how much of the Gospel account was transmitted prior to being set in writing, although it is highly conceivable that that those capable of writing would have done so. Don't underestimate the strength of such transmission, it was very accurate in it's ability to convey information.

 

We know from early Christian sources that Christians were very keen on the information that was accepted. The fragments that survive of Papias show that he only sought information from eye witness from the beginning and who were of high regard in the community. Interestingly Luke uses the same phrase in the beginning of his Gospel. In debates with Gnostics we note Christians uses apostolic succession in defense of their beliefs and as an attack against Gnosticism. So again, we're not dealing with a bunch of degenerates who gladly accepted whatever story tickled their ears, these were very serious people who understood that the words of Christ were there salvation, and that preserving them accurately was in their better interest.

[Apotheoun]

. . . how about the fact that Judaism still exists. So much for the all powerful Messiah!

Of course Judaism still exists, for it exists in the life of the Church. In fact, all that Christ did continues to subsist in His body, and it is in that sense alone that the Law of Moses, which is perfectly fufilled in Christ, continues.

[Fidei Defensor]

Let's focus on your first sentence. What do you define as a "small group" and how do you know it was small? Secondly, why would this be a negative? It's easier to control the flow of information in a small group than a larger one. What you have to realize is that we're not dealing with a game of telephone or rumors floating around that were eventually written on paper, we're dealing with a controlled flow of information with a strict apparatus for its transmission. There is clearly an authority even in the earliest stage of Christianity, we note for example that when a controversy arose over circumsizing gentiles Paul's response is not to solve it himself, but to hed to Jerusalem and bring it to judgement among the Twelve. This key group known as "The Twelve" is repeatedly mentioned and serves as a reference for an actual authority that existed even in those times. After his conversion, Paul spent some time in seclusion but after resurfacing his first priority was to meet with the "pillars" of Christiantiy, namely Peter, John, and James, they formed the highest authorities in his time. What we see here is clearly an authority that serves as a control, even when Paul is vested with an authority to preach himself among the Gentiles, he is constantly in contact with communities he started ensuring they remain on the straight course. Clearly, we're not dealing with a loosely held organization that is headless, where all sorts of fancies and strange ideas float around. When what is judged as "error" arises it is quickly squashed. Furthermore, the transmission of this information was not only gaurded by an authority but by the method of transmission itself. In 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul uses a technical phrase that is lost on modern readers, he says what "was handed to him he passes on". This phrase refers to a specific type of training that was known in the Helenistic and Judaic world where one memorized information verbatim, it involved active learning, reptition, and correction by a teacher. This is actually how much of the Gospel account was transmitted prior to being set in writing, although it is highly conceivable that that those capable of writing would have done so. Don't underestimate the strength of such transmission, it was very accurate in it's ability to convey information.

 

We know from early Christian sources that Christians were very keen on the information that was accepted. The fragments that survive of Papias show that he only sought information from eye witness from the beginning and who were of high regard in the community. Interestingly Luke uses the same phrase in the beginning of his Gospel. In debates with Gnostics we note Christians uses apostolic succession in defense of their beliefs and as an attack against Gnosticism. So again, we're not dealing with a bunch of degenerates who gladly accepted whatever story tickled their ears, these were very serious people who understood that the words of Christ were there salvation, and that preserving them accurately was in their better interest.

The problem with this rosy picture you've painted is that the written word in the Bible does not follow this apparent "controlled" flow of information. The gospel writers barely agree with each other on anything, let alone the important stuff like the ancestry of Jesus or what time of day he was even crucified, or what his last words were! You'd think that would be something that one would never forget if they believed that their Lord and Savior was being murdered right in front of them.

 

Despite what you claim, it was very much a game of telephone. Word of mouth is what they had with no written record to show for it until at least 40 years after the fact. After 40 years I would imagine the clarity of events was a little less than when the events actually happened.